Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!amdahl!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: +e option in cfront 1.2 (1/2 answer)
Keywords: virtual functions
Message-ID: <10038@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 14 Oct 88 00:47:36 GMT
References: <246@oresoft.UUCP> <21678@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 26

In article <21678@cornell.UUCP>, deb@svax.cs.cornell.edu (David Baraff) writes:

> Could someone please e-mail me the correct way to use the
> +e option in cfront 1.2?

Sorry, not this one.

> I must have libraries that have 27 static
> copies of functions, because each of the 27 .C files making up
> the library included the same header file.  This must eat up space!

It should only be 27 copies of very small functions.  If they're not
so small, you wouldn't bother inlining them.  However, it might work
to split up your header, only including the definition in modules
that use the function.  (I'm not sure -- please inform me if you
find out.)

> Is there ever any point in writing virtual functions as inline?

This one is obvious -- execution time can still be saved if you have
a smart linker.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The above opinions are my own.   |   Norman Diamond
  If they're also your opinions,   |   Sony Computer Science Laboratory, Inc.
  you're infringing my copyright.  |   diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net